Thanks for your comments. When I travel for example to exotic destination including tourist excursion in a local market, or to attend a local ceremony, or just to take photos of the amazing landscape in front of me, ...... I have 2 gear options:
- Option 1: To keep my current gear items (1 Canon EOS R5 body and various RF lenses) and to buy a second EOS R5 body, so I can use for example on 1 EOS R5 the RF 15-35 f2,8 and on the second EOS R5 camera body to use the RF 24-70mm f2,8.
- Option 2: To buy a multi-purpose 24-105mm f/4 Canon lens and to use it with my current and only one R5 Camera body. The advantage for this is maybe to save a bit of money (compared to buy a second R5 body), and travel a more lightweight. The BIG disadvantage for me, considering what I have already invested on various RF wide open (f/2,8) lenses, is to keep most of my high quality lenses at home, "suffer" a bit about lower images quality and because it is a F4 vs F2.8 lens, not as bright....
In conclusion, which option do you think is better for me?
Only
you can answer how much the better image quality obtained by using two bodies with higher quality lenses is worth
to you compared to the convenience and lower expense of using a single, less capable lens with one body.
But by the time you buy an RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS, you're already two-thirds of the way to the cost of an R6 as a second body at current prices. [At least at current U.S. prices.]
And while the R6 is no R5 - or even no R6 Mark II which still costs less than twice what an RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS does but also has some AF capabilities that even the R5 does not - I've often found that with wider angle lenses the difference between my 30 MP 5D Mark IV (also with better low light performance than the 5D Mark III) and my older 22MP 5D Mark III isn't nearly as noticeable as it is with longer focal length lenses. For my eye the better lens performance of even the original EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L compared to the EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS is a greater difference than that of one generation of 5-series cameras.
Based on what I've seen of the RF 24-70/2.8 vs. the RF 24-105/4 I'd say the difference between those two lenses is at least about the same. Unless you're enlarging pretty big or cropping significantly, the image quality of the R6 is pretty close to the R5. It doesn't sound like you're shooting much fast action or active wildlife where the faster handling speed of the R5 compared to the R6 begins to really set it apart. It also goes without saying that if you decide on a 24-105/4 as a single lens solution you're totally giving up 15-24mm angles of view.
More often than not I choose to use two bodies (5D4 + 7D2 or 5D3 - depending on how much light) with two higher quality zooms (EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L + EF 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II) or even two primes (e.g. EF 35mm f/2 IS + EF 135mm f/2 L) than a single body with a lower quality zoom (EF 24-105mm f/4 IS). The only time I use the 24-105/4 any more is if I'm shooting from an unstable platform, such as a temporary outdoor stage vibrating with music, where the IS that the EF 24-70/4 does not have comes in handy. And even then it's usually as part of a two body setup. [And the RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS has IS plus both the R5 and R6 have IBIS, so the RF 24-105mm f/4 L IS has no advantage at all there.]
But that's what
I would do in the situations I shoot.
It may or may not be the best choice
for you. Only
you can decide that.
